Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32600266›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2020

An efficient single-cell transcriptomics workflow for microbial eukaryotes benchmarked on Giardia intestinalis cells.

Henning Onsbring, Alexander K Tice, Brandon T Barton, Matthew W Brown, Thijs J G Ettema

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Phylogeny and species delimitation of ciliates in the genusbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Dual RNA Sequencing Reveals Key Events When DifferentFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Henning OnsbringDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 75123, Uppsala, Sweden.
Alexander K TiceDepartment of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, USA.
Brandon T BartonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, USA.
Matthew W BrownDepartment of Biological Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi State, USA.
Thijs J G EttemaDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 75123, Uppsala, Sweden. thijs.ettema@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6898-6377
Mississippi State University · USScience for Life Laboratory · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

Training and Mentoring Core P20GM103476 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI · PI MICHAEL R GARRETT · 2012 to 2026
$60.2M
European Research Council 310039NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103476SSF FFL-5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost diversity in the eukaryotic tree of life is represented by microbial eukaryotes, which is a polyphyletic group also referred to as protists. Among the protists, currently sequenced genomes and transcriptomes give a biased view of the actual diversity. This biased view is partly caused by the scientific community, which has prioritized certain microbes of biomedical and agricultural importance. Additionally, some protists remain difficult to maintain in cultures, which further influences what has been studied. It is now possible to bypass the time-consuming process of cultivation and directly analyze the gene content of single protist cells. Single-cell genomics was used in the first experiments where individual protists cells were genomically explored. Unfortunately, single-cell genomics for protists is often associated with low genome recovery and the assembly process can be complicated because of repetitive intergenic regions. Sequencing repetitive sequences can be avoided if single-cell transcriptomics is used, which only targets the part of the genome that is transcribed.

resultsIn this study we test different modifications of Smart-seq2, a single-cell RNA sequencing protocol originally developed for mammalian cells, to establish a robust and more cost-efficient workflow for protists. The diplomonad Giardia intestinalis was used in all experiments and the available genome for this species allowed us to benchmark our results. We could observe increased transcript recovery when freeze-thaw cycles were added as an extra step to the Smart-seq2 protocol. Further we reduced the reaction volume and purified the amplified cDNA with alternative beads to test different cost-reducing changes of Smart-seq2. Neither improved the procedure, and reducing the volumes by half led to significantly fewer genes detected. We also added a 5' biotin modification to our primers and reduced the concentration of oligo-dT, to potentially reduce generation of artifacts. Except adding freeze-thaw cycles and reducing the volume, no other modifications lead to a significant change in gene detection. Therefore, we suggest adding freeze-thaw cycles to Smart-seq2 when working with protists and further consider our other modification described to improve cost and time-efficiency.

conclusionsThe presented single-cell RNA sequencing workflow represents an efficient method to explore the diversity and cell biology of individual protist cells.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationGiardia lambliaProtozoan ProteinsSequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell AnalysisWorkflowProtozoan ProteinsGiardia intestinalisMicrobial diversityMicrobial eukaryotesProtistsRNAseqSingle cell genomicsSingle-cell RNA sequencingSmart-seq2TranscriptomeTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID32600266
PMCPMC7325058
OpenAlexW3037933073

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.